slop | slop is an application that queries | Frontend Framework library

packages from the [tidyverse][1] make this fairly convenient:

You can show the documents that match exactly with "Distributed nature", by using a bool should clause. The first clause will boost the score of, those documents that match exactly with "Distributed nature", without any slop.

If you need AND semantics for your date range filters, you can let both range queries in the bool/filter array.

However, if you need OR semantics you can use the bool/should query, like below:

Thanks to @ilvar who got my attention to the keyword definition, I have noticed that the status field is defined as text.

This field is getting it's values from a Status enum and the string representation of that enum is being saved.

For some reason results hasn't returned until I searched for the X.status.keyword path ( ES documents mention that a field who's type keyword is not explicit so it can be several types)

Rule #1: Don't manipulate HTML with regexes. Use a DOM parser instead.

Rule #2: You probably don't want to fuss with the overhead of a DOM parser, just want to get the job done, and are likely to ignore Rule #1.

Therefore, if you wish, something like this might do the trick:

It's not related to ES version.

Update max_expansions to more than 50.

max_expansions : Maximum number of variations created.

With 3 grams letter & digits as token_chars, ideal max_expansion will be (26 alphabets + 10 digits) * 3

Welcome,

Phrase Fields, Phrase Slop and Query Phrase Slop in eDisMax parser are used to boost a document based on certain criteria.

Based on your use case you can give different boost values to manipulate the overall score of a document.

The pf (Phrase Fields) parameter can be used to boost the score of documents in which all of the terms in the q parameter appear in close proximity. The pf parameter takes a list of fields and optional corresponding boosts. The eDisMax query parser will attempt to make phrase queries out of all the terms in the q parameter, and if it’s able to find the exact phrase in any of the phrase fields, it will apply the specified boost to the match for that document.

The ps (Phrase Slop) parameter :

When using the pf parameter, you may not want to require all terms in the query to appear as an exact phrase. You can make use of the ps (phrase slop) parameter to specify how many term positions the terms in the query can be off by to be considered a match on the phrase fields.

The qs (Query Phrase Slop) parameter :

Just as the ps parameter allows you to define the amount of slop (edit distances) on phrases matching in the phrase fields (pf parameter), the qs parameter allows you to do the same for phrases the user explicitly specifies in the main q parameter. Think of the qs parameter as redefining what an exact match is, allowing you to change the slop from the default of 0 (terms must appear beside each other) to a higher number.

What is your requirement here? These params can only help you for ranking results to boost or get some documents at the top and not in actual search criteria or finding matching documents.

There appears to be something very wrong with the calculated GC CPU time. It's 41010 secs compared to 2737 sec elapsed, which doesn't make sense if you're only running on three capabilities.

This miscalculation means that the calculated MUT CPU time, which is just total CPU time minus INIT, GC, and EXIT time, is actually a large negative number (5073-41010-2 = -35939). This gives a productivity of -35939/5073=-708%. When the MUT seconds are displayed, negative numbers are truncated at zero, to avoid reporting small negative numbers when MUT is very low and there's a clock precision error, which is why the displayed MUT time is 0 instead of -35939.

I don't know why the GC time is so badly miscalculated. My best guess is this. If you're running on Windows, there are known issues with CPU time clock precision, and it's possible that certain unusual patterns of garbage collection timing might result in precision errors occuring in only one direction, slightly overestimating the actual GC time more often than it underestimates it. Over 2.4 million collections (see your GC stats), this difference could accumulate to a huge positive error.

I looked through GitLab issues, and except for the report on general Windows CPU time imprecision and a couple of probably unrelated negative MUT reports here and here, I didn't see anything helpful.